Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Matrimony
Chapter 27: That Not All the Precepts of Leviticus on the Degrees Are of the Law of Nature: The Arguments Solved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
But now the arguments must be solved by which the heretics prove that all the precepts of Leviticus about the degrees of kinship are natural, and by this indispensable.
The first argument is Philip's, in the Commonplaces, under the title on marriage; Brenz's, on chapter 18 of Leviticus; Chemnitz's, in the second part of the Examination, page 1231; and Beza's, in the book on repudiations: “God, Leviticus 18 and 20, pronounces that he will punish the nations which dwelt in Palestine before the Hebrews came there, on account of the incestuous marriages which are forbidden in this chapter 18 of Leviticus; and he calls those joinings of the gentiles an abomination before God. Therefore the precepts of Leviticus about the degrees of kinship are not judicial but natural, since they bound also the nations, which did not belong to the people of Israel.”
Someone would perhaps answer that God willed to punish the gentiles not on account of the transgression of the precepts about the degrees of kinship, but on account of adulteries, on account of lying with males and with beasts, and on account of idolatry, which those nations practised with the idol Moloch. For these four crimes, which are truly against nature, are forbidden in chapter 18 of Leviticus after the prohibition of the degrees of kinship, and are placed last. But this does not seem a solid solution. For although in chapter 18 of Leviticus the penalties against the gentiles are placed immediately after those four crimes, yet in chapter 20 the same penalties against the same gentiles are placed immediately after the prohibitions of the degrees of kinship.
Nor can it be answered that God punished the gentiles on account of marriages in the first degree of consanguinity, which are against the law of nature, but not on account of marriages in the other degrees. For in that chapter 20, after the degrees have been enumerated, these words are had: “Keep my laws and my judgments, and do them: lest the land vomit you out also. Walk not after the laws of the nations, which I will cast out before you. For they have done all these things: and therefore I abhorred them.” So there; and those last words, “they have done all these things,” since they are universal, cannot be restricted to certain particular crimes.
I answer: all those precepts about the degrees of kinship are natural in some way, namely if the degrees of kinship are taken barely and by themselves, without the circumstances which suffice to make marriages in those degrees honorable. For certainly that general proposition of Leviticus 18, “No man shall approach to her that is near of kin to him,” contains the law of nature; and therefore in the several precepts about the degrees the word “nakedness,” or shame, is repeated, because it is shameful to contract Matrimony with a kinswoman, since nature itself dictates that a certain reverence is owed to them, with which carnal union fights. And because those nations were mingled with blood relatives without any choice, they sinned without doubt in each against the law of nature, and therefore were deservedly punished.
Yet this is to be observed here, that the nations sinned indeed in contracting such marriages, but not so gravely that on account of them they had to be cast out of the land: for that penalty properly looks to the crime of idolatry and adulteries, and those monstrous crimes with beasts and males. For when Scripture says, “They have done all these things,” and so on, it understands not only marriages in the forbidden degrees, but all the crimes named above. Nor does Scripture say that they were worthy to be vomited out of the land on account of each sin, but on account of all, because among all there were some most grave and enormous.
That this solution is true can be confirmed by the examples of the patriarchs, as Jacob, Juda and Amram, I add Abraham too by the opinion of Theodore Beza, who contracted marriages in the forbidden degrees and yet were not punished by God, because namely they did it not rashly but with reason; nor did they join to these marriages those four crimes on account of which properly those nations were punished.
The second argument, of the same Philip and Chemnitz: “The Corinthians, on the pretext of evangelical liberty, did not bear the Levitical law about the degrees of kinship; for one of them celebrated Matrimony with his stepmother. But blessed Paul sharply reproves the Corinthians for this matter, and delivered that incestuous man to Satan; therefore, by Paul's judgement, Christians are bound to the observance of the Levitical law about degrees. Wherefore that law is not judicial but natural.”
I answer, first: it is probable that the first degree of affinity in the direct line is forbidden simply by the law of nature; but not therefore are all the precepts about degrees natural, because one or another is natural.
Second: it is probable that the Apostle speaks of someone who had his stepmother in place of a concubine while his father was still living; which crime was not only incest but also a most grave adultery. For St. Anselm and St. Thomas gather this from that of 2 Corinthians 7: “Wherefore although I wrote to you, it was not for his sake that did the wrong, nor for him that suffered it; but to manifest our carefulness”: for he who did the wrong is the incestuous son; he who suffered it is the father, whose wife was violated. And although it could be understood, as Theodoret will have it, that the wrong was done to a dead father, yet it is far more probable that the Apostle speaks of a living father: for he does no wrong to a dead man who takes his wife, since by death the conjugal bond is loosed.
The third argument of Chemnitz: “John the Baptist, whose ministry put an end to the old law, confirmed the precept of Leviticus about not taking a brother's wife: he said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife, Matthew 14 and Mark 6.”
I answer, first: John the Baptist did not put an end to the law, but Christ, if it is a question of the change and abrogation of the law; yet John too put an end to the law, because he was the last prophet of the Old Testament, according to that of Luke 16, “The law and the prophets were until John.” Wherefore in the whole time of John the law of Moses was in force, and Herod, who professed that law, was bound to observe it. And it was not lawful for him according to the law to have his brother's wife, whether that brother was living or dead, because offspring had already been born of that Matrimony, namely that daughter of Herodias who so pleased the king with the art of dancing that she obtained from him the head of St. John. For that this was the daughter of Herodias by her former husband Chrysostom teaches, homily 49 on Matthew; and it is sufficiently certain from this, that the death of John fell in the very beginning of Herod's marriage with Herodias, as is plain from Josephus, book 18 of the Antiquities, chapter 10. For if at that time the girl already knew how to dance, certainly she had been born many years before; nor is it likely that St. John would have waited so many years before reproving Herod for that public crime.
Second, it can be answered that Herod's crime was not incest only but also adultery: since, as St. Jerome relates from ancient histories in the commentary on chapter 14 of Matthew, Herod had taken the wife of his living brother. Which Josephus also writes, book 18 of the Antiquities, chapter 9, although there is disagreement about the name. For Josephus says that this Herod took Herodias, the wife of another Herod his brother, while living; but Jerome names Philip as the brother of Herod whose wife Herodias had been before. And, what is far greater, Mark, chapter 6, openly calls him Philip; wherefore either Josephus must be wrong, or that man was called by both names. This is what makes to our matter in this place, that all agree that Herod had the wife of a living brother.
The fourth argument of Chemnitz: “God, Leviticus 18 and 20, added various penalties, and those most grave, to his precepts about the degrees of kinship: for he commanded that they be slain, or destroyed from the people, or bereaved of children, or forbidden entrance to the Church.”
I answer: it does not follow from these penalties that all those precepts are natural: for like penalties are added to judicial and ceremonial ones too, as is plain of the transgressor of the law of circumcision, Genesis 17, and of him who eats leaven in the days of unleavened bread, Exodus 12. Lastly, the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are full of such penalties.
The fifth argument is John Brenz's, in the commentary on Leviticus, chapter 18: “Laws in which Moses and the Roman Caesar agree cannot be judicial, but moral. But Moses and Caesar agree in forbidding many degrees of kinship; therefore the law forbidding such degrees is not to be held judicial, but moral.” He proves the major proposition: “Because the polities of Moses and of the Romans are approved by God, and are the most excellent of all others; therefore there is no doubt that those things in which those two polities agree are of the law of nature.”
I answer: it is not true that all laws belong to the law of nature in which Moses and Caesar agree, nor is it solidly proved by Brenz.
For, first, Brenz does not allege, nor can allege, any testimony of the word of God from which to prove his proposition; and so we are not bound to believe him, if their own principles are worth anything among them.
Then he assumes not truly that the polity of the Romans was approved by God. Christ indeed says, Matthew 22, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's”; and the Apostle, Romans 13, that all power is from God, and therefore that princes are to be obeyed and tributes paid; but not therefore did God confirm all the laws of the Romans; otherwise he would have confirmed also the laws about worshipping idols and about paying usury. For Augustine writes, in letter 54 to Macedonius, that even in his time men were compelled by Roman laws to pay usury; nor are other unjust laws lacking, which it is too impious to say were approved by God. It is one thing, then, that princes commanding justly are to be obeyed, which Christ and the Apostle will; another that all the laws of princes are just and approved by God, which is nowhere found in the word of God.
Besides, even if the laws of the Romans had all been just, and so approved, as in truth the laws of Moses were, yet it could not be gathered that all the laws belong to the law of nature in which Moses and Caesar agree. For it can easily happen that they agree also in positive laws; nay, since all the laws of the Caesars are positive, it is necessary that, if ever they agree with the Mosaic, they agree plainly in positive ones. For the law of Caesar does not forbid what all know by the light of reason alone to be forbidden, but sets a penalty on those who do otherwise; or certainly what the law of nature teaches in general, the civil law determines in particular; and both are positive, both the setting of a penalty and the determination of a right in particular.
Brenz, then, has not proved his proposition; but let us now prove from his principles that it is false. The law of Caesar forbids marriage with the sister of a dead wife, which marriage the law of Moses does not forbid, as Brenz grants in the same place; therefore that law is positive, and properly Caesar's and political, not natural, according to the rule of Brenz, who will have those laws positive and not natural in which Moses and Caesar do not agree. Again, that law is positive and political; therefore the law also which forbids marriage with a brother's wife will be positive and not natural: for it is exactly the same degree of affinity with a brother's wife and with a wife's sister. For as my brother's wife is my sister by affinity, because she is one flesh with my brother, so my wife's sister is my sister by affinity, because her sister and I are one flesh. But if the law forbidding marriage with a brother's wife is not natural, as we have now deduced, then Brenz's proposition is false, affirming that all those laws are natural in which Caesar and Moses agree: for this is not natural, and yet Caesar and Moses agree in it.
The sixth argument is brought by Thomas Waldensis, tome 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 134, from Augustine in the book of questions on Leviticus, question 53, otherwise 65, where Augustine seems to bring back that whole Levitical table of forbidden degrees to the Decalogue, as conceived beforehand in it.
I answer: Waldensis did not attend carefully to the opinion of St. Augustine. For he, in questions 61 and 65, says that adultery is forbidden in the Decalogue, and again in Leviticus, chapter 18; and from this he deduces that the other precepts of Leviticus which forbid marriage with the wife of a father, or brother, or uncle, and so on, ought not to be taken of the wife of a living father, or living uncle, or living brother, but of a dead one; because otherwise they would be superfluous, since all these are adulteries and already forbidden in the Decalogue.
A seventh argument can be added from Innocent III, the chapter Gaudemus, on divorces, where he says that a Matrimony contracted between unbelievers in the second, third and further degrees is valid, and ought not to be dissolved when they are converted to the faith, because they were not bound by those laws of the Church. From which some gather that by Innocent's opinion a Matrimony of unbelievers contracted in the first degree is void, and so forbidden by the law of nature. But marriage with a dead brother's wife is in the first degree; therefore it is forbidden by the law of nature.
I answer: this argument is not against our conclusion. For we contend only that not all the degrees forbidden in Leviticus are forbidden by the law of nature; which Innocent too teaches, when he will not have the second degree forbidden by the law of nature, although he was not ignorant that that degree had been forbidden in Leviticus.
Yet this argument is against what we often say, that marriage with a brother's wife is not void by the law of nature. Therefore I answer: Innocent said nothing of the first degree, but only declared what had been proposed to him about the second and following. Moreover, even if he had said openly that the first degree is forbidden by the law of nature, this would have to be understood of the first degree in the direct line, or of the first degree of consanguinity, not of affinity. For, as we have in the last chapter on divorces, the same Innocent dispensed that in Livonia they might keep the wives of dead brothers; which certainly he would never have done if he had thought that degree forbidden by natural law.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Sed jam argumenla solvenda sunt , quibus
haeretici probant , omnia praecepta Levilici de
gradibus cognationis esse naluralia, et per hoc
indispensabilia.
Primum argumenlum eslPhilippi in locis, lilulo
de conjugio, Brentii in Lcvilici cap. 18. Remnitii
in 2. par. examinis,pag. 1231. el Uezae in lib. de
repudiis. Deus, Levit. 18. et 20. pronuncial, se
genles, quae habilabant Palaestinam anlequam eo
ilebraei venissent.punilurum ob incesla conjugia,
quae in islo cap. 18. Levitici prohibentur;el vocat
conjuncliones illas Genlilium, el abominalionem
coram Deo; ergo praecepta Levilici de gradibus
cognationis,non sunt judicialia, sed naturalia,cum
Genles cliam obligaverinl,quae ad populum Israel
non perlinebanl.
Responderel aliquis fortasse,Deum punire volu-
isse Gentiles, non propler transgressionem prae-
ceplorum de gradibus cognationis, sed propter
adulteria, propter concubilum cum raasculis et
jumenlis, et propler idololalriam, quam Gentcs
illae exercebant cum idolo Moloch. Nam ista qua-
luor scelera, quae vere sunl contra naturam, pro-
hibenlur in cap. 18. Levilici, post prohibitionem
graduum cognationis, el landem subjiciunlur. At
non videtur solida solulio. Nam eliamsi in cap. 18.
Levilici.poenae in Genliles subjicianlur imraedialc
posl illa quatuor scelera, taraen cap. 20. subjici-
untur eaedem poenae in eosdem Gentiles imme-
diale posl prohibiliones graduum cognationis.
Nequepolcsl responderi, Deura punivisse Gen-
liles ob conjugia in primo gradu consanguinilatis,
LllJEU PHIMLS
849
quae sunl conlra legem nalurac: non aulem ol)
conjugia in aliis gradibus. Kam in illo cap. 20.
post enunieralos gradus, liabentur haec verba:
Cuslodilc leges meas, alquc judicia. cl faciie ea:
7ic el Tos evojiial tcrra. !Solile ambulare in lc<ji-
timis nalionum, quas cgo expulsurus sum ante
vos: omnia enim liacc fecerunt, ci abominatus
sum cas. Haoc ibi; iila autc(n verba poslrcma:
Omnia haec fecerunt, cura sinl universalia, non
possunl rcstringi ad cerla aliqua scelcra.
Uespondeo: Omnia illa praccepla de gradibus
cognalionis, naluralia sunt aliquo modo, nimirum
si nudc ac solitarie sumantur gradus cognalionis,
sine circumslanliis, quae sufliciant ad Matrimonia
in illis gradibus honestanda. Nam certc propositio
illa gcncralis Levil. 18, Ad proximam sanguinis
sui nemo accedai, jus nalurac coinplectilur , el
idco eliam in singulis praeceplis de gradibus ,
rcpetitur vocabuIum,Turpitudo, quia lurpe esl cnm
cognata Matrimonium conlrahere, cum natura ipsa
(lictct revercnliam quandam illis ricbcri. cum qua
pugnat copula carnalis. Et quia Gcnlcs illae sino
ullo delectu miscebantur consanguincis,peccabanl
liaud dubie in singulis contra jus nalurae, el ideo
mcrito puniebanlur.
Esl lamen illud hic 'observandum^peccasse qui-
dem Gentes in ejusmodi conjugiis contrahendis;
S('d nonita graviler,ut propter illa cjiccnda csscnt
0 terra: ista enim poena propric rcspicit crimcn
idololatriae cl adultcria, ac flagilia illa prodigiosa
rom besliis ct masculis.Cum cnim Scriptura dicil:
Omniahaec fccerunt elc. non inlclligit tantum
conjugia in gradibus prohibitis, sed omnia scclera
supra nominala.Ncc dicit Scriplura,propler singula
peccata fuissc dignos illos.qui a tcrra cvomeren-
tur; scd propler omnia. quia nimirum inler omnia
erant quacdam gravissima cl enormia.
Veram cssc hanc solulioncm. confirmari polcst
excmplis palriarcharum,ul Jacob, .Tuda cl Amram,
addo eliam Abraham cx opinionc Thcodori Bezae,
qui in gradibus prohibitis conjugia coiilraxcrunl,
et tamen a Deo puniti non sunl, quia vidclicet non
tcmere. scd cum rationc id fcccrunl: ncquc ad
isla conjugia adjunxcrunt quatuor illa scelcra, ob
quae propric Gonles illac punitac fuerunl.
Sccundum argumcntuni cjusdcm Philippi et
Kcmnitii: Corinlhii practcxlu cvangclicac liho.r-
latis non ferebanl legem Levilicam dc gradibus
cognationis: quidam cnim corum cum novcrca
sua Malrimonium cdebruvit. At b. Vaulus acri-
icr ob hanc rem Corinthios rrprchcndil, cl incc-
stuosum illuni Satanuc tradidil: orgo Vaulo ju-
dicc, lcnenlur (^hristiani ad oliscrvantiam. lcgis
Lcvilicac dc gradibus.Qiiare lcx illa nonjudici-
ulis, scd naturalis csl.
UcspondcorPruno probabilc cst.lM'iinuin gradiim
alTliiilati.s in linca rccla,simplicilcr proliibiluiii cssc
jure nalurae:scd non ideo praeccpla omiiia dc gra-
dibus sunl naturalia, quia unum aul allcriim csl
naturaie.
Sccundo: Probaljilc cst .Aposloluin loqui dc ali-
quo,qui novcrcam concubinac loco habcrcl, vivcn-
lc adhuc palrc; quod scclus non inccslus lanliim,
scd et adullcriuni eliam gravissimum cral.id cniin
colligunt s. Ansclmus el s. Thomas cx illo 2. Co-
rlnlb. 1. Scripsilvobis non proplcr illum, qui
fecii injuriam. nec propicr eum. qui passus cst,
sed ad manifcslandam sollicitudinem nostram;
nam is qui fccit injuriam, esl iilius inccsluosus:
qui cam pertulit,est pater, cujus uxor violata cst.
El quamquam possel inlclligi.ul vult Thcodoretus,
palri mnrtuo ractam esse injuriam: tamen longc
probabilius est, Aposlolum loqui de patre vivo:
nam mortuo non fncil injuriam, qui cjus uxorcm
ducit, cum per mortein solvatur vinculum con-
jugalc.
Tcrtium argumcntum Kcmnitii: Joan. Baptisia,
cujus minisierium finem imposuit legi vcteri,
confirmavii praeccptuni Levitici dc non ducenda
uxore fratris: Dixilllerodi: JSonlicei tibi haberc
uxorcm fratris tui, Matth. 14. ct Marci IG.
I\espondco: Primo Joan. Daplisla non imposuil
finein legi,sed Chrislus.si dc mutalione;et abroga-
tione legis agatur: imposuil lamcn cliam Jo;innes
fincm legi, quia fuit ipsc ullimus prophcta velcris
Tcstamenti, juxla illud Lucae IC). Lcx et pro-
phctae usque ad Joanncm. Quare tolo tcmpore
Joannis, Icx Moysis vigebat.el tcncbatur Hcrodcs,
qui eam lcgem profitebatur,observare. I\on iiccbal
aulcm ci secundum lcgcm habcrc uxorem fralris
sui, sivc is viverct sivc morluus cssct, quia prolcs
cx eo Matrimonio jam nala erat, nimirum filia illa
Ilerodiadis, quae saltandi arte ila placuit rcgi, ut
ab eo caput sancli Joannis impctraverit. Istam
cnim filiam fuisse Herodiadis. cx priorc marito,
dooct Chrysostomus homil. 40. in Mattbaeum; ct
satis constat ex eo, quod mors Joannis incidil ia
ipsum initium conjugii Herodis cum IJerodiadc, ut
palel cx Josepho lib. 18. aiUiquit. cap. 10. Si cnim
eo temporc puella jam tripudiare noverat, ccrlc
multis annis ante nata fuerat: neque verisimilc cst
s. Joanncm cxpectalurum fuisse tot annos, anle-
(luam llcrodcm publici illius criminis rcprchen-
derct.
Sccundo rcspondcri polcst,crimcn Hcrodis non
fuissc inceslum tanluin. scd ctian) adullerium:
siquidcm ulin comment. cap. 14. in Matth. rcfcrl
ex antiquis hisloriis s. Hieronymus, Hcrodcs vi-
vcutis fralris uxorcni acccjieral. Quod ctiam Jo-
scplius scribil lib. 18. antiquit. cap. 9. quamvis
in noinine disscnsio sil. Joscpus cnim dicit Ilcro-
dcm istum duxisse Herodiadcm uxorcm alterius
Hcrodis fratrib sui viventis. Hicronymus autcm
Philippum nominat fratrcm llcrodis, ciijus uxor
antca fucrat Hcrodias. El quod longc majus cst,
Marcus cap. G. apcrlc vocal Pliilippuin: quare
op|)orlcl, vcl falsum cssc Josephuiii. vcl hoinincm
illuiii ulroquc nominc a[)i)cllalum. Illud hoc loco
ad rcm nostram facil, omiu^s convenirc, Hcrodcin
vivcniis fralris uxorciii liiibuissc.
Qiiartiini argincntum Kcinnilii. Dcus Lcvit. 18.
cl 20. varias pocnas, easquc gravissimas adjccit
pracccplis mis dc gradilyus cognalionis: jussit
cnini inlcrlki, aut dclcri dc ■jioputo, anl orbari
filiis, autproiiibcri aditu l^cclcsiac.
Uespondco. Xon s(upiilur cx his pocnis, omnia
illa pracccpta cssc naluralia: nam ctiam judiciali-
bus cl cacrcmonialibus addunlur similes pocnae,
850
l)Ii; SAC11A)1E,\T0 MATKIJIOMI
iil p;ilcl (le iransgressore Icjjls, de circuincisionc,
(ien. 17. ct ile coincdentc fermentaium in dic-
hus a/yinorum, Kxoti. 12. Deniqiie plcni siiiil li-
bri K.vodi , Lcvilici cl Numerorum ojusmodi
poenis.
Quiiitum ar-^jumtMiluin osl. Joan. Bronliiin com-
mcnlario I.cvilici, cap. 18. Lcges. in quibus con-
veniunt Moijses el Cacsar ronianus, non possunt
cssejudiciales,sed inorales.Scd convcniunl Moy-
scs cl Caesar in mullis (jradihus cocjnalionis pro-
lul>cndi.-<: crgo lcx prohibens cjusmodi gradus ,
»1071 est habenda judicialis.scd ??iora/is. Majorem
propositionem probal.tiula polilicac Moysis et Ro-
manorum. sunl approbalae a Deo, ct sunl omiiium
ajiarum pracslantissimac: crgo non cst dubium ,
ea, in quibus duae illac politiae convcniunl, cssc
juris nalurac.
Respondeo: Non estverum leges omnes ad jus
nalurac pertinere, in quibus Moyscs el Caesar con-
vcniunt, ncque id solide probalur a Brentio.
Primum onlm non allcgal,neque allcgare polcst
Brentlus ullum leslimonium vcrbi Dei,undc probel
suam proposilioncm:proiudc non tencmur illi cre-
dere,si quidquam valent apud ipsos ipsorum prin-
cipia.
Deinde non vereassumit, poliliam Romanorum
a Dco fuisse approbatam. Cliristus quideni dicil
Mallb. 22. Rcddilc quac sunt Caesaris, Caesari\
et Aposlolus Rom. <3. omnem potestalem esse a
Deo. cl ideo principibus esse parendum,cl Iribula
praeslanda: scd non ideo condrmavil Deus omnes
leges Romanorum; alioqui confirmasset eliam le-
j?es dc colendis idolis, el de solvendis usuris.Scri-
bil enim Augusliniis in epistola oi.ad Maccdonium
adbuc suo temporc lcglbus Romanis coaclos fuisse
liomlnes usuras solvere: nec dcsunt aliae leges in-
justae, quas nimis impium est dicere, a Deo esse
probalas. Alind igilur esl, pnrcndum esse princi-
pibusjusle imperanlibus, quod Chrlslus el Apo-
stolus volunt; aliud autcm,omnes principum leges
esse juslas, et a Deo probatas, quod nusquam in
verbo Dei reperiliar.
Adliaec eliamsi leges Romanorum fuissent o-
mncs justae, atque adeo probatae, ut revera erant
leges 3Ioysis: non tamen colligi posset, ad jus na-
turae pertlnere omnes leges, in quibus Moyses et
Caesar conveniunt. Polest enim facile fieri,ut con-
venianl ellam in leglbus posilivis ; immo cum o-
mnes lcges Caesarum positivae sint, necesse est ,
ut si quando conveniunt cum Mosaicis, in posilivis
planc conveniant. Lex enim Caesaris non prohibet
id, quod solo lumine ralionis omnes noverunt esse
prohibilum.sed poenam conslituit in eos qui secus
fccerint, aut certe quod jus nalurae docet in ge-
nere, lex civilis determinat in particulari; utrum-
que aulem posilivum est, tam poenae conslilutio ,
quam eliam dcterminalio juris in particulari.
.Aon igilur probavit Brentius suam proposiiio-
nem: sed probemus nos modo ex ejus principiis ,
illara esse falsam.LexCaesaris prohibet conjugium
cura sorore uxoris mortuae, quod conjugiura non
prohibet lex 3Ioysis, ut ibidera Brentius concedit:
ergo lex illa posiliva est, et proprie Caesaris etpo-
lilica, non autem naturalis, secundum regulam
Rrentii, qui vult posilivas cssc, el non nalurales
legcs,in quibus Moyscs el Caesar non convcuiuut.
Rursus, lcx illa positiva el politica cst,crgo ctiam
Icx illa, quac prohibel conjugium cum uxore fra-
tris, positiva ct non naturalis erit: nam csl idcm
prorsus gradus airmitatis cum uxore fratris,Gl cuin
sorore uxoris. Utenim uxor fralris niei csl mihi
soror airinitale, quia iila cst una caro cum frairc
meo; ita soror uxoris meae est mihi soror alTinila-
tc, qiiia soror cjus ct cgo, una caro sumus. Quod
si lex prohibcns conjuglum cum iixore fralris,non
est naluralis, utjam dcduximus,crgo falsa esl pro-
posilio Brenlii afTirmans, naluralcs esse omnes il-
las lcgcs, in quibus convcniunl Caesar ct Moyses:
haec cnim non cst naluralis, cl tamen in ea convc-
niunlCacsar etMoyses.
Scxtum argumenlum adfcrt Thomas Waldcnsis
tom. 2. de sacramcntis cap. l.'H'. ex Augustino in
llb. quacstionum super Levlt. quaest. 53. alias 65.
ubi Augustinus videtur lolain illam tabulam levili-
cara dcgradibus prohibilis rcducere ad decalogum
lamquam in co praeconceplam.
Respondeo: Non diligenler attendit Waldensis
sententiam s. Augusliui. Is enim quacsl.Gl. el 05.
dicit, adulterium in decalogo esse prohlbitum, et
iterum in Levitico cap. 18. ex eo aulem deducit ,
reliqua praecepta Levitici, quae prohibent conju-
gium cum uxore palris, vcl fralris, vel palrui etc.
non debere acclpi de uxore palris vivcntjs, aut pa-
trui vivcnlis, aut fratris viventis, sed rnortui, quia
alioqui supervaeanea esscnl,cum omnla isla adul-
teria sint, el jam in decalogo prohiblta.
Seplimum argumentum addi potest ex Innoccn-
lio III. capil. Gaudonius, dc divortiis; ubi dicil ,
Malrimonium inlcr infideles contractum in 2. 3. et
ulterioribus gradlbus, csse ratum, nec debere dis-
solvi cum illi converlunlur ad fidem, quia non le-
nebantur illis legibus Ecclesiae. Ex quo colliguiit
aliqui,ex senlenlia Innocentii Malrimonium infidc-
lium in primo gradu contractum , esse irritum, ct
proinde jure naturae prohibilum. At conjugium
cum uxore fratris mortui, eslin primo gradu, crgo
prohibitum jure nalurae.
Respondeo: Argumentum hoc non e^ contra
conclusionem nostram. Nos autem lantum cooten-
dimus, non omnes gradus in Levitico prohibilos ,
esse prohibitos jure nalurac, id quod Innocentius
eliam docet, dum secundum gradum non vult esse
prohibltura jnre nalurac,cuin tamen non ignorarct
eum gradum in Levilico fuissc prohibilum.
Est taraen hoc argumentum contra id quod saepe
dicimus, conjugium cum uxore fralris, non esse
irritura jure nalurae. Idco Respondeo:lnnocentium
de primo gradu nihil dixisse, scd tantum dcclaras-
se id, quod ei proposilum fuerat de secundo etse-
quenlibus. Praelerea eliamsi aperte dixisset pri-
mum gradura jure naturae prohibitura esse, debe-
rel hoc intelligi de primo gradu in linea rccla, vel
de primo gradu consanguinitatis, non autcm affmi-
talis. Nam ut habemus cap. fin. de divortiis, idem
Innocenlius dispensavit, ut in Livonia relinerent
uxores fratrum defunctorum:quod certe numquam
fecisset, si existimasset.jurc naturali eum gradum
prohibitum fuisse.
LICER PRIMUS
881